The Middle Way

Really?

 

Like many women, I’m amazed that our national political conversation has returned to a topic I thought we settled long ago: birth control.

As a young woman contemplating my first sexual experience, the most important question after “when” was: how do I make sure I don’t get pregnant? I knew one thing: I wanted control over the decision about when to have a child.

When I entered the workforce in the mid ‘70’s, birth control pills were the only regularly prescribed medication not covered by my company’s insurance plan. That didn’t change until women gained a larger share of responsibility and became more valued contributors.   

Fast forward to 2012 and we’re arguing, again, about whether insurers should cover birth control. The Obama Administration says yes, and mandated that the Affordable Care Act should fully fund those costs. Many conservatives (and the Catholic Church) say no, citing religious and/or First Amendment rights. While I don’t agree with the Catholic Church on this issue, I respect their belief, which has been nothing but consistent as long as I’ve walked this earth (even as every Catholic I’m related to or acquainted with chooses to ignore their teachings on this topic). And while my conservative friends will disagree with me, I think Obama has done an admirable job of trying to work within this constraint while still holding true to the principle of universal coverage. 

Like most non-religious people, I respect those with strong religious beliefs, and my circle includes both close friends and family members who fit that description (including my nephew, who plans to enter the Catholic priesthood). This makes me inclined to roll up my sleeves when faced with religious objections and say, “OK – what can we do to make sure women who want this coverage can obtain it under the same conditions as every other woman in the country, in a way that won’t violate your beliefs?” If self-insured Catholic institutions say that putting the onus on their insurance companies, as Obama proposed, is still a violation, what are other possible solutions? 

The other conservative complaint I see goes something like, “I don’t want to pay for your sex life,” with the implication that covering birth control comes out of your own pocket. Yet that’s how insurance works: it pools the costs of members’ coverage across the insured population. Your premiums help pay the cost of other participants’ health care expenses with the expectation that their premiums will also help pay yours. Do we really want people (or the companies who insure us) choosing what they pay for? Taking this to its logical extreme, should non-smokers be required to pay for a smoker’s lung cancer?  A recovering alcoholic’s liver transplant? 

Keeping insurance costs down involves balancing the pool of participants so that healthy people pay more into the system than they draw from it. The excess funds they generate help pay for the higher costs of those who withdraw more than they pay in. I accept this trade-off as a citizen who values living in a community where we take care of each other. I’m fine with having some of my health care dollars support those who need it more; after all, I might find myself in their shoes someday. 

Many insurers increasingly realize the cost benefits of fully covering the cost of certain health care procedures as part of their wellness programs. That’s one of the reasons why my plan now fully covers annual mammograms for women and colonoscopies for people over 50. Birth control falls within this category as well, particularly for low income women, whose rates of unplanned pregnancy are far higher (and whose complications from pregnancy are correspondingly higher as well). And contrary to what some pundits say, the cost can be considerable, especially for the most effective options and for those with fewer resources.

I’m not comfortable with painting this discussion as a “war on women.” In fact, I’m not comfortable with retreating into either side’s talking points vacuum. What concerns me is that at the same time we’re heading to our usual corners and shouting at each other, many states are making it increasingly difficult for women to have access to affordable health care coverage (including reproductive health services). That means more women will lose access to cervical and breast cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, and other services. This will certainly result in more women dying from preventable diseases. 

 I would like to think this would concern us all. 

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

The very purpose of spirituality is self-discipline. Rather than criticizing others, we should evaluate and criticize ourselves. Ask yourself, what am I doing about my anger, my attachment, my pride, my jealousy? These are the things we should check in our day to day lives. -- Dalai Lama 
 

Bullying has been in the news a lot lately. All over the country, every day, you’ll find news reports of its sometimes tragic aftermath and efforts to stop it. We feel outrage and ask why this is happening. We blame the kids, we blame the parents, we blame the schools, we blame TV or violent video games or Facebook or… 

Let’s instead hold up the mirror and take a long look at what our children see, every day. Like reality television shows whose ratings rely on berating contestants or trash talking each other. Or cable “news” channels where it’s standard operating procedure to replace facts with hyberbole at best and untruths and half truths at worst. Or debates with candidates vying for the US Presidency where the debate sponsor encourages a reality TV atmosphere, with predictable results. Where being angry and shouting over those you disagree with and calling them names, denigrating them and everything they stand for, is standard operating procedure. 

Maybe politics has always been a brutal contact sport but the rest of life didn’t used to be. I remember. I remember listening to conservatives like William Buckley, and while as I grew older, I didn’t share many of his political views, I never felt like shouting at my TV when he espoused them. I remember when facts were facts -- not something that had a left or right spin.

Sometimes it seems we’ve lost our ability to talk across these social and political divides. It’s easy to avoid each other or even hearing the same news; modern society provides us with our own echo chambers. There are very few opportunities to leave them and hold real dialogues. 

Every now and then, something breaks through and we see – for a moment – just people with different views, having a real conversation. Like this recent interview with Jon Stewart and Republican Senator Jim DeMint. Like the U.S. House of Representatives coming together to demonstrate respect for a colleague – and each other – when Rep. Gabby Giffords resigned. 

Some would say we respect civility but we reward rudeness. I would agree. And yet, every time I make a choice to read the story with the leering headline, I’m rewarding the kind of behavior I want to see less of. It may be part of our evolutionary conditioning to be drawn more to drama than to discussion – I get that. So does the media: angry people hurling accusations at each other draw eyes. It makes me wonder who profits from this constant “us versus them” state of affairs. 

By actively seeking out angry and tawdry behavior, by supporting diatribe over dialogue with those who believe differently than us -- well. It’s like letting the bullies win.

And Now, A Word From Our Sponsors...

I guess I’m not done yet with this topic of the Corporate States of America.

As we move corporate political donations from behind the (thin) curtain that maintained an appearance of fair play (if not the reality), what might we look forward to? Brand placements in political ads – “Vote No on Issue 1, brought to you by Buy N Large” (nods to WALL-E and my son)? How about in the chambers of Congress?  Whole state delegations could compete for sponsorship dollars! Imagine Congressional seats decked out with decals, a la NASCAR (thanks, Stan!). And why stop at the Halls of Congress? There’s a whole White House to conquer!

Yep – we’ll finally get this country running like a well-oiled machine. Of course, not everyone is up to the task of being a worthy denizen, but I’m sure our corporate-led government will find ways to maximize profits through strategic outsourcing, “rightsizing” and other corporate efficiency programs. Imagine – an entire nation in transition! Generous outplacement and philanthropic programs will handle the deserving hard cases; religious and other not-for-profit organizations can manage the rest.

<irony off>

We’re at another moment in U.S. history where greed and righteous indignation are tearing us apart. We have tone-deaf bankers who can’t understand why million dollar bonuses are morally and ethically wrong; legislators and political parties who can think no further than the next election cycle; and strident media voices stirring up populist anger to accept no negotiation or compromise on any issue. Differences of opinion become chasms no one is willing or able to bridge. And now the highest court in the land has ruled it’s acceptable to give the largest “haves” in our country the unlimited ability to buy the power they seek.

What price victory? In the words of one of our country’s original sponsors:

"Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for." -- George Washington, in a letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795

Definition of a Gentleman

While cleaning out my computer files today, I came across this quote from Confederate General Robert E. Lee:

"The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

"The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly -- forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light.

"The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others."

Putting aside the gender issue, it struck me as especially relevant for these times, and on more than one level.  Would anyone argue that "forbearing or inoffensive use of...power or authority" has been sadly lacking in our society of late?

And yet the words that really touched me involved the nobleness of spirit involved in forgiveness and moving on, and in avoiding a sense of moral superiority.  On the same day as The New York Times posted this article to their Opinion page, I'm reminded (again) to reach for that place beyond anger.

What's done is done.  Let's absorb the lessons learned and start re-building.